A promising premise about reality and performance
What starts out with a very promising premise descends into confusing chaos.
The core conceit, according to writers Alfie Lanham-Brown and George Abbot, is that through the power of arguing, the performers are “guided entirely by ideas from the audience, we are going to answer some big questions via some serious discussion.” Sounds rather intriguing I thought.
It started off strongly to Britney Spears’ Womanizer blaring through the speakers as audience members are individually greeted into the black box basement space of the Barons Court Theatre. So far, so unnerving. I took a strategic seat towards the back of the room, and what followed was a one hour whirlwind led by the aforementioned Alfie and George, who were for some reason dressed in suits like they were fresh from a political cabinet meeting.
Formed of three acts, each one involved further audience interaction as the “arguments” progressed. My suspicions were raised when we were never actually told what an argument is, nor are the audience informed of any structure or rules beyond a half hearted attempt at a mutual contract about generally not being offensive. In fact it should really be called The Debate, but that would have started an argument.
The topic of “the future of theatre” was conveniently chosen first, with Alfie pitting himself against George alongside some minor audience heckling disguised as input. The “argument” was less an argument and more of a shouting match of unoriginality.
For the next act we were told to discuss the topic of AI with the person next to us for two minutes. This proved to be the only time I actually encountered anything resembling an argument and I offered some viewpoints to my friend who returned the favour. This was confusing, as I could have done this sat in the pub upstairs.
[Spoilers ahead]
Then in a neat touch, it appeared that there had been actors planted in the audience all along. It descended into chaos quite quickly though as actors revealed themselves in ever more contrived ways and began to argue amongst themselves over who had the next line or who was getting paid to be there. It turned out about half the audience was in fact an actor. At one point as more people began to stand up I began to question my own sanity- was I the only genuine audience member there? I then remembered how almost every person who had answered a question or offered a suggestion was actually an actor. This created a confusing anticlimax. The whole show therefore didn’t have much of any genuine audience participation, then. Nor was it spontaneously unscripted and free flowing with challenging ideas. I felt duped. Early on in the show I recall thinking it felt like every person speaking in the room had main character energy and now I know why. Rather bizarrely, the show just sort of ends as all the actors dance onstage like they’re in a nightclub before the two leads have a fight and then the audience is awkwardly shuffled out in silence.
Ironically, the whole piece therefore feels completely inorganic. I’m still not sure if it’s meant to be meta and its references to theatre and AI speak to a more complex discussion to be had about reality and how live theatre can make you remain grounded in the present. If the purpose was to question the link between reality and performance, they achieved it because I certainly questioned what was real, just not in a positive way. The plot twist is clever but doesn’t really lead to anything. I just wish there had actually been an argument in a show called The Argument.